Est. 2010 – "Dishonest, diversionary and pompous…"

Menu

Religious Liberty NOT 1st Amendment Issue

The debate over religious liberty is not a 1st Amendment issue — not really. It is a 13th Amendment issue. What is at the heart of this debate is the demand by militant homosexuals that Christians serve them instead of God. if this were not the case, then homosexuals would go to another flower shop or bakery, get what they want and go on with their lives. Instead, they intentionally go where they know it is likely the business owner will refuse to serve them and, when this happens, they demand the law be changed to force the Christian to violate his/her religious beliefs so they can be accommodated. this is enough to give lie to the homosexual claim of equal rights or protection. It’s not what this is all about. It is about forcing people to accept and accommodate your life style — even if they find it morally objectionable. However, the solution is NOT found in the 1st Amendment. It is in the 13th Amendment:

Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

1: a condition in which one lacks liberty especially to determine one’s course of action or way of life

2: a right by which something (as a piece of land) owned by one person is subject to a specified use or enjoyment by another

So, let me see if I got this right: the 13th Amendment was part of the correction of slavery, and intended to prevent it in the future, but now the homosexual community wants to make involuntary servitude legal again.

OH, SNAP! The gays want to enslave Christians!

Now, if you happen to be on the side of the homosexual agenda here, STOP! Before you give me any flak over what I just said, you had better be prepared to accept that it is 100% true and 100% accurate! Any time you seek to use the law to force a person to live/work for your benefit, you are claiming the right to make them your slave. So do not reply with the assumption that you hold the moral high ground here, because you don’t and I will be more than happy to point it out in ways that you will probably like even less than this post. For example: if you are NOT targeting Christians, then why aren’t you bringing all these suits against Muslim businesses? After all, with this President and current govenment alignment with the Muslim Brotherhood, it won’t be much longer before Muslims are running things, so you should really be going after them — but you’re not. Why is that?

BTW: the 13th Amendment actually strikes down ALL socialist laws. If you are forcing someone to live/work for the benefit of another, you are enslaving them, and that violates the 13th Amendment. And NO! It is not ‘different.’ It is exactly the same. All you are doing instead of claiming physical ownership as property is nationalizing them as property of the State — which is exactly what Hitler said the socialist should do.

And racism we are told by the Liberal Progressives is ONLY practiced by Whites because they are the so-called “majority” and have all the power. Just as bigotry and intolerance are only practiced by Christians for the same “reasons” we are told. And in fact it is the “gays” that are the Nice, Sweet and Normal ones…. (we have that on authority of the New Libertarian authoritative position on Social Justice) …. whereas Christians and others who believe in the Bill of Rights, Declaration and Natural Rights are the ones who need to be dealt with in the most violent way….with words and actions.

The gay gal says CLEARLY…..gays should have 1st Amendment rights but Christians should not. She is using the progressive tool of “The Law” superseding the Constitution / Bill of Rights and of course Natural Rights. Reading through it one sees the key to her argument is that “Equal protection under the Law” should be superseded by ” a Protected Identity” !!

Which of course is fundamentally saying Legislation ( ie Civil “Rights”….social Justice) should create a Class of people who are “more equal than others”.

There is no ‘law’ in any of this. There is only a minority trying to seize control of the government and public opinion for the purposes of forcing their will on the majority. I do not care what this issue is, this is tyranny — plain and simple. This is why I have grown rather hostile to those who support this agenda, and even more so to those who claim they are acting in the name of ‘fairness.’ They are about as ‘fair’ as Hitler was to the Jews — and yes, I hold those actually pushing this agenda to be on the same moral level as Hitler, Stalin, Mao and L=pol Pot — even their hero, Chez. What’s more, I will not apologize or budge from this position as it is the Truth.

As a homosexual, I can’t agree more. Nobody should be forced to cater to anybody unless they’re running a public service like a gas station, hospital, electric company, etc. There are plenty of non-vital businesses that would love to take our money without the lawsuit.

I didn’t use the term Non-Vital. More like those functions/services which are needed to insure Life, Liberty and Pursuit of one’s goals…..say Medical, Cabs, food, utilities etc that without them being provided in a normal business environment ( meaning a customers choice of providers) an individual would NOT be able to affect their Natural Rights. They would not be able to insure their Life, their Liberty and their Normal functions in Life.

Those are contrasted with, for want of a Better term, “discretionary” services. Services which we all “consume” but which are not necessary to our Staying alive, Living Freely or hinder our ability to go forward in life.

I would take it a step further. Christ commanded us to show the love of Christ to all sinners, the lost included. The only time a Christian is free to refuse to deal with another person is in matters that violate another of the Lord’s commands. So, if I am asked to sell gas to a homosexual, I have no Scriptural support to refuse. On the other hand, I do have Scriptural reason if I refuse to provide direct support to a homosexual wedding.

So, according to Scripture, a Christian who is truly trying to live according to Christ’s example will have very few things they can justly refuse to do for any non-Christian, and even fewer for believers — gay or not. And yes, you can be a homosexual and be a believer, but that opens a whole other can of worms best addressed in another post.

“…. So, if I am asked to sell gas to a homosexual, I have no Scriptural support to refuse. On the other hand, I do have Scriptural reason if I refuse to provide direct support to a homosexual wedding…”

Thank you for your honesty. And may I share in return that those Christians who would refuse to serve someone simply because they are homosexual are not practicing the love of Christ as they are commanded to do. The only exceptions they can claim and still be within Christ’s commands would be to refuse something that has Spiritual foundation. In the case of marriage, they can make an exception, but not for much else. Sadly, too many who call themselves by Christ’s name are poor examples of Hos disciples, and I count myself among that number. I have not always acted according to Christ’s teachings, but I have started trying to do better — with His help, of course.

So, please, do not think I am quick to let the other side off the hook on this matter, because I am not. Instead, I call Christians to actually live their faith, and that requires them to show Christ’s love to all sinners — except when it conflicts with Christ’s other commands.